R v Wilson - [2000] NSWSC 1104

CITATION: R v Wilson [2000] NSWSC 1104

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70027/00

HEARING DATE(S): 20/11/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 20 November 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Shannon Blake Wilson

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

COUNSEL : B Newport QC - Crown
Anthony Cook - Accused

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
WR Goodman & Associates - Accused

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990

CASES CITED: R v Presser (1958) VR 45 at 48

DECISION: Accused unfit to be tried, pursuant to s 14(a) of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 accused referred to Mental Health Review Tribunal. Accused remanded in custody until the determination of the Tribunal has been given effect to.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
BELL J
Monday, 20 November, 2000

70027/00 - REGINA v Shannon Blake WILSON

JUDGMENT
(re fitness to be tried)
1 HER HONOUR: The accused was arraigned on an indictment which charged him with the murder of Kevin Earl Lester on 15 October 1999 at Nowra. Upon his arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty. Since that time an issue has arisen concerning whether he is unfit to be tried upon that indictment.
2 The accused signed an election pursuant to s 11A of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (“the Act”) seeking to have the question of his fitness to be tried determined by judge alone. It is necessary for me to be satisfied that before making that election the accused sought and received advice in relation to the election from a barrister or solicitor.
3 Mr Cook, who appears on behalf of the applicant, relies on the affidavit of David Campbell French, solicitor, sworn on 30 October 2000. That affidavit discloses that prior to making the election Mr French and counsel, Christopher Craigie, conferred with the applicant and conveyed to him Dr Westmore's view that he was not fit to stand trial. Mr French went on to explain that it was necessary to work out whether that issue should be decided by a judge or by a jury of twelve people. He asked the accused whether he knew what a jury was and the accused said, "Yes, but I wouldn't know what to do". The accused was advised that he was entitled to take advice from Mr Craigie and Mr French but that ultimately the matter should be his decision. He was further informed that it was Mr Craigie's advice and that of Mr French that the question of his fitness should be determined by a judge alone. He was asked whether he, the accused, was able to make a decision about this issue and the accused replied that he wished the issue of fitness to be dealt with by judge alone.
4 In the light of that material and having regard to the contents of the psychiatric material which is before me on the inquiry, I am satisfied that the applicant sought and received advice in relation to the election prior to making that determination…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [2000] NSWSC 1104
Case: [2000] NSWSC 1104
Decision Date: 20 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New South Wales was presented with a case concerning the fitness of Shannon Blake Wilson, who was charged with the murder of Kevin Earl Lester. Wilson pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, but concerns arose about his fitness to stand trial. The court was tasked with determining whether Wilson was fit to be tried according to the criteria set forth in the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990.

The key legal issue was whether Wilson met the criteria for fitness to be tried. The court examined several reports from psychiatrists and psychologists, as well as affidavits from Wilson's legal representatives, to assess his mental state. The primary considerations included whether Wilson could understand the proceedings, plead to the charge, exercise his right to challenge, and instruct counsel regarding his version of events. The court referenced the case of R v Presser to guide its assessment of Wilson's fitness.

Bell J concluded that Wilson was unfit to be tried. The psychiatric evaluations indicated that Wilson had limited intellectual ability and was suffering from a depressive illness, which impeded his ability to discuss the circumstances of the offence and participate in the trial. The court found that Wilson's current mental condition would prevent him from adequately engaging in the trial, even if he were to communicate his version of events to his legal representatives beforehand. Therefore, the court referred Wilson to the Mental Health Review Tribunal under section 14(a) of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, and remanded him in custody until the tribunal's determination was carried out.

Orders